Friday, January 6, 2012

Ever since I can remember, I have always been a Zionist

Ever since I can remember, I have always been a Zionist. To understand this, we have to go back to my childhood, in fact my school days. I have always heard an extremely negative and detrimental description about the Jewish people, that they are the most cunning, mean, ruthless, selfish, self centered, conniving, greedy and sick people. I always used to counter-question those in authority about why are they supposed to be so bad, and I always got very petty reasons, saying because they killed innocent Muslims and still are killing so many innocent Muslims in Palestine, and mainly because they killed so many prophets. I had never personally met a Jew in my life (actually I still have not met any), but from what I had seen, heard and read in the media, they seemed like pretty normal people with two hands, two feet, two eyes, two ears and a nose, and they definitely do not have horns on their heads. It was only recently that I discovered that the Jews are actually the oppressed and not the oppressor as otherwise claimed by the Arabs. To understand my point of view, it is very vital that you all know the true historical background of Israel and the Jews. This lesson in history is especially imperative for the ignorant and misinformed Muslims who are totally oblivious to the facts, so here it goes.

1. Israel became a nation in 1312 BCE, two thousand years before the rise of Islam.

2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.

3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BCE, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years, with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 CE lasted no more than 22 years.

5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.

7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.

9. In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.

10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution, and slaughter.

11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.

12. Arab refugees were intentionally not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own people's lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey.

13. The Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.

14. The PLO's Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them.

15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.

16. The UN Record on Israel and the Arabs: of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.

17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.

18. The UN was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians.

19. The UN was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

20. The UN was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like a policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

If you consider the above facts, you will see that the state of Palestine never existed in history. When the Romans changed the name of Israel to Palestine, the people living there at the time were Jews, not Arabs. If there had been a "Palestinian People," which there never was, they would have been Jews. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Before the Israelis won the land in war, Gaza belonged to Egypt, and there were no "Palestinians" then. The West Bank belonged to Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians" then. The only reason that Muslims want Israel is because of their hatred toward Jews, Judaism, and anything that is not Muslim.

Muslims believe in only one thing, that is, hatred. They hate everyone, whether they are Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists or anyone who is not a Muslim. Because of the hate-filled teachings of Muhammad, Islam is in a constant state of war with every religion on the planet. But did you notice? None of these other religions are at war with each other, at least not in the current state of affairs.

They even hate Muslims who are not from the same sect, that is, Shias hate Sunnis and vice versa. Mohammed indeed created a monster, and that is Islam. Even after 14 centuries, that monster continues to haunt us and will continue to do so unless and until we do something to stop it.

Wow, thank you for your post! Of course, I already knew what you had written, being an observant Jew myself. But coming from someone with your background, it is refreshing to hear it.

Yes, we Jews are normal people and peace-loving as well. In regard to the situation in the disputed territories, there is a well known quote that says, "If the Arabs were to drop their swords, there would be peace tomorrow. If the Jews were to drop theirs, there would be no Israel."

Unfortunately, Jews have been the scapegoats of history. Because of their faith in one G0d (with no children), we have been persecuted and murdered. Because we value family and education (and have risen to the top in many societies), others have used their own jealousies to destroy us. Now, because we are strong, we are vilified for protecting ourselves.

I have no doubt you will be deeply criticized for this post by those who would rather appease the demons of Islam, then to seek reality and truth. The truth is, Jews do not hate Muslims. But we also know we can not lower our guard around them.

Unfortunately, years of terror have made many enemies in the Middle East and old prejudices are hard to lose. The sadness is that Arab leaders need the Jews as a scapegoat for their own failures as a society. Answer me this, if the Jews hate the Muslims so much, how come the Israelis allow Gazans to come to Israel for medical treatment? How come they warn the Gazans before they strike? How come they send more aid to Gaza (and the West Bank) than any other country in the world?

If you just open your eyes, you will see the lies that Arab society is told.

"I have always heard an extremely negative and detrimental description about the Jewish people, that they are the most cunning, mean, ruthless, selfish, self centered, conniving, greedy and sick people."

@Everyone You folks made fun of me When I spoke of liberals in Pakistan, among whom apostates like Shakila could live; All apostates and not just Shakila. Here is a times article that proves that there indeed are plenty of liberals in Pakistan:

Note: Liberals of Pakistan are not the same kind of people as liberals in the US. Remember, whereas the liberals in US are liberal relative to US conservatives, the liberals in Pakistan are relative to their conservatives (aka fundamentalist muslims, jihadists, islamic-extremists etc). Therefore, supporting them is a SMART thing to do.

"...Freedom of speech is constitutionally, 'subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam.' ..."

"...Law enforcement personnel abused religious minorities in custody. Security forces and other government agencies did not adequately prevent or address societal abuse against minorities. Discriminatory legislation and the Government's failure to take action against societal forces hostile to those who practice a different religious belief fostered religious intolerance, acts of violence, and intimidation against religious minorities... "

"...religious minorities are legally restricted from public display of certain religious images..."

"...The consequences for contravening the country's blasphemy laws are death for defiling Islam or its prophets; life imprisonment for defiling, damaging, or desecrating the Qur'an; and 10 years' imprisonment for insulting another's religious feelings..."

"...The Ministry of Religious Affairs...has on its masthead a Qur'anic verse: 'Islam is the only religion acceptable to God...' "

"...Authorities routinely used blasphemy laws to harass religious minorities and vulnerable Muslims and to settle personal scores or business rivalries... "

"...Mobs occasionally attacked individuals accused of blasphemy and their families or their religious communities. When blasphemy and other religious cases were brought to court, extremists often packed the courtroom and made public threats against an acquittal. Religious extremists continued to threaten to kill those acquitted of blasphemy charges. High-profile accused persons often went into hiding or emigrated after acquittal..."

"...In September 2008 a former federal minister and host of a popular religious television show declared on air that killing Ahmadis was the 'Islamic duty of devout Muslims;' at least two Ahmadis were killed in Sindh within 48 hours of this declaration...At the end of the reporting period, the the government continued to stall investigation into the deaths..."

"...Violence against and harassment of Christians continued during the reporting period..."

"...In April 2009, at a district court in Nankana Sahib, Punjab, police cleared three men accused of raping a 13-year-old Christian girl despite eyewitness accounts and medical evidence... "

"...A March 2009 attack on a church and the surrounding neighborhood in Sangu-Wali, a village in Gujranwala, Punjab, left a woman dead. The attack was believed to be prompted after a Christian filed a robbery complaint against a local Muslim who, along with his friends, indiscriminately preyed on the community..."

"...Hindus faced societal violence, often directed at temples, during the reporting period..."

That is from the 2009 report, but unless I'm mistaken, things have not gotten better in Pakistan.

I posted these news stories, and I posted these news stories, but there always seem to be still more news stories about violence and persecution against people who leave Islam (hat tip: thereligionofpeace.com)

I have always wished that all the Jews would have been allowed to come to the US, instead of Israel. They are smart and energetic and would have helped our country to prosper even more. It would have taken a few years for them to be fully accepted into our society, because many people like to hate their employer. Some of the Jewish people would have been elected to higher office. Imagine, a president with a backbone, such as Netnyauh. The Arabs in the region would have been left to blow-up each other.

i live in Arab Muslim country and to be honest i think Jerusalem should be for all people ‘’ Jews , Christians and Muslims ‘’ but I don’t think this will happen with Muslim aggression and the claim it’s only for them . I just want to show the people in the west what Muslims really say about the Jews. 2 weeks ago and I was in lecture and the professor (one of the top in my college which is the highest college in my country) came across why Muslims don’t eat pigs and that’s exactly what he said 1 cuz they are filthy 2 cuz they are not healthy 3 and the most important because they originally were Jews and transformed that’s why Allah don’t want us to eat them I was shocked how this guy holds PhD, I remain silent cuz I don’t want to put myself in trouble, sorry if this was offensive to the Jewish people here but I had to say it because I know Muslims in the west are liars, hypocrites and they are trying to brainwash you with the peace loving kind version of Islam I’ve been seeing jihad watch for almost 5 months now and you guys keep up the good work

There you are skouti! Come on, help a truth seeker here... where in the Torah can I find the name of mohamad? Quran, surah 7:157 says: Those who follow the apostle of allah, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own Torah...

Surely the quran can't be wrong, can it now. I searched all over the Torah to no avail! Can you tell me the Torah chapter and verse that mentions mohamad, thereby confirming the glorious unadulterated and uncorruptible truth of the quran?

8 year old Naama Margolese wears long sleeves and a skirt. But while walking to school through an ultra-orthodox settlement in Israel the religious Jewish girl has been been called a 'whore' and spat on. Naama is deemed not religious enough by zealots in Beit Shemesh, about 11 miles west of Jerusalam and has become a symbol in Israel for the growing abuse of women and young girls by Jewish extremists.

If the Koran says Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible then Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible, because the Koran says so. Why is this so difficult to understand? Had this not been the case then that would mean the Koran is wrong and Allah would be proven false. There must be some references to back this up.

In the article it is pointed out that the PLO Charter "calls for the destruction of the State of Israel." How can it call for the destruction of a State it says does not exist to begin with? Isn't this an oxymoron?

Surely if ones very soul depends upon proving whether the Koran is right or not references should be supplied. Just think how many millions of souls have slipped into eternity without proving this Koran claim to be true. If the BoM, or any other religious book says it's from God and makes erroneous statements then untold numbers of people are being deceived.

Without trying to be controversial let's see those references so we can check their veracity.

to skouti and all the others slaves of allah:(2nd post similar with my first one)

I really don't understand why all commenters here are polite towards your murderous threats and islamonazi propaganda and debating with you. For me, I will gladly cut your throats and feed you to the pigs. All are you trying to do is:

1. discourage the truth to be told about cruelty of islam

2. scare Liberated and eventualy make her revert or at least make her silent.

3. try to find out her identity so you can post it on one of the many masturbatory jihadi sites.

The sense of terror that many people are living through in islamic countries is real. You boasted that there are many people converting to islam than the other way. LIE - because the ones leaving islam are risking their lives (and you little fucks agree with this) 99% of them are going underground afterwards - and the converts to islam are usually stupid left-wing rags or deluded single women who will still live in the West all of them posting their garbage on Youtube. I don't hear about converts to islam moving to Afghanistan, Iraq or Saudi in droves.

I met a girl in Morocco once, and she confirmed to me the insanity and complexes of the muslim men. She was deeply religious though and even if she "married" me for several weeks, I did not bring the subject of her religion at all. But I could see how tormented and unhappy she was. She left crying when I departed, I guess I was the first man in her life who treated her with respect.

Liberated, stay strong. Get out of there seeing that you have powerfull friends and leave everyone behind - you're mature enough to cope alone, family cannot help you. This is why this dirtbag skouti is keep insisting that you speak with your parents, he hope the worst for you will happen.

skouti - again - I will gladly exterminate you for what you're trying to do, killing an intelligent human being trying to escape islam hell. It's none of your business, you can go smell the farts of other men at the local mosque as many times you want. Take the slave with you, too.

And a newsflash: we are not all forgiving Christians or impartial Atheists trying to equalize the blame. It's only 7th of January and every single day of this year was about muslim crimes on non-muslims or muslims alike: in Nigeria, in Syria, in Iraq, in Egypt, in Philipine. Mark my word - you pushed it too far and part of the muslims will have a cruel fate if you're not starting to behave like human beings.

Totally agree! I for one, would immediately discard my faith if anything I believe in became provably false.

So here in the quran I read sura 7:157 that says mohamad is mentioned in the Torah. I searched everywhere in the Torah, to no avail. So I must be doing something wrong, yet none of our brave muslims reading this blog here, will tell me the Torah chapter and verse that mentions mohamad!

"At least 10 people have been killed when gunmen targeted Christians who gathered in a town hall in northeastern Nigeria on Friday.

The exact details of casualties are not known yet, but officials have confirmed the gory incident. According to Reuters, the victims belonged to the Igbo ethnic group who gathered at the hall in Mubi. The group is a minority in the Muslim-dominated northeast of the country.

The incident marks the latest in a series attacks linked to the sectarian conflict in the country. At least six people were killed in a similar incident in the country on Thursday when assailants opened fire on a church service.

Mubi is located just south of Borno, the homeland of radical Islamist sect Boko Haram which has been targeting members of the other sects in recent months.

Early this week, Boko Haram, a Taliban-like outfit, warned that people of Christian faith should either leave the Muslim-dominated areas or face death, the Reuters report has said. A local newspaper had carried the warning."

I worked in Pakistan for 3 months, both in Lahore and Karachi. So much poverty, and most of the people blaming others in other countries for the situation there (Indians, Jews, Americans, Christians, non-believers.. you know, everyone except Arabs)

All day long educated people will stay listening direct sermons from Mecca on phones and laptops, then taking 3 very long breaks during working hours for prayers while I was coping with everything. After 12-13 hours I was alone at night in the building hearing the shootings in Karachi... every day was a shooting or burning and people killed.

It's hard to understand how especially educated people with internet access can accept this, but I guess is a lifetime of brainwashing and the hatred and fear instilled at young ages.

Still young muslims born in the West are even more violent in their thinking, being fed the supremacist theories and all. Take care!

A good presentation overall from Liberated One. I have a little difficulty, however, with one part of the timeline:

4... The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 CE lasted no more than 22 years.

5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity.

The first statement I quoted above refers to the first Muslim conquest of Jerusalem; but it's puzzling because if Muslim dominion over Jerusalem had not lasted much longer than "22 years" then the raison d'etre for the later Christian Crusades -- to win back control of Jerusalem and defend it from Muslim oppression -- would not make sense. Nor would it make sense that Muslims controlled all the lands around Jerusalem for at least a good 1300 years before the West began slowly edging in after the 17th century, and yet they permitted Jewish control of Jerusalem all that time? Doesn't that belie all the horror stories we have been talking about, of oppressive Muslim rule?

The first Crusade didn't occur until well over 400 years after the Islamic conquest of the Levant, at the end of the 11th century. All that time, Jerusalem was surely neither under Christian control (as it had been for at least two or three centuries prior to Mohammed) nor was it under Jewish control nor autonomous. It was under Muslim control.

Then, after the Christian Crusaders briefly re-took control of Jerusalem, they were defeated and kicked out by the Muslims.

After that, Muslim control over Jerusalem and all its environs lasted at least until the 17th century, when the West began flexing its newly found Colonialist muscles and spreading around the world Eastward, and Westward -- with each passing century after that only increasing in influence and interference. By the early 20th century, the West had become so powerful globally, it was able to shut down the Caliphate, and then carve up the Muslim world into countries, from Morocco to Indonesia.

(In the meantime, since the early 20th century, Muslims discovered oil and Western technology to facilitate a revival of their perennial jihad; while by a cruel irony the West discovered vast quantities of the silly putty of PC MC which, instead of enriching and empowering its owners, only gets them mired and stuck in ridiculously self-defeating policies. But that's another story.)

skouti, I can piss on your face any day. I spent time on many muslim countries and every little fucker was looking to the other side after trying to look into my eyes. I'm a proud Romanian from a nation who killed tens of thousands of you rapists during the history. Despite this, I met some intelligent and open minded muslims who made my day.

You're only strong when attacking from the back or in packs like those 11 muslims raping under age girls in UK just like your "prophet". You're the keyboard warrior posting hatred here 100 times per day, not me.

But I guess you're not a muslim really, just some pimp-ridden teen troll in his mom's basement.

Hugh, you're right. Our three resident mohamedans who continually come here to insult and threaten Shakila (aka the Liberated One) are skouti, anj and slave of allah. There may be a couple more but these three have been consistent. I am told they are british pakistanis who are still in their youth. At least for skouti this appears to be the case since his posting times are consistent with a british timezone.

Absolutely great video from this guy, explaining how mohammed died - all taken from muslim texts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=6st_tFj6ouM

Payback is bitch, live by the sword die by the sword etc etc.

My apologies to Liberated, I have no intention of making your blog a fight forum. My advice if permitted - I understood you're an avid reader - try to detach now from the confusion and sorrow you must fell with some good comedy (movie, or stand-up or whatever) - it always help when down.

Afterwards, think about the future. As I see it now, all muslim countries will be engulfed in an even greater religious paranoia and killings, making non-observant women and men more vulnerable. Take care!

"In addition to treaties, countries are bound by customary international law and general principles of law. International customary law can be understood as the customs of states recognized as law, and it refers to the norms that states have recognized historically as binding them. The most obvious and important example of this is the norm of “pacta sunt servanta”, treaties must be obeyed."

and twice as fcukin USELESS. only thing your backward ass country ever produced is thievin GYPOs like you, ROFLMAO :)

Here is this how muslims deal with turds like you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMW032VThuQ

enjoy gypsie bwoy :)

"I read it!"

great, well done now go and google illegal jewish settlements under international law. This will help you to understand why no single country recognises the occupied territories as belonging to isreal.

There seems to be a sharp tongued. potty brained, potty mouth here on this board. Gracing us with his vile witt. The best of people from that odious political ruling philosophy from the jinn infected sex-crazied holy prophet (sic). You sir are a swine and k-9 hater. Let us scratch you out. Peace!

"Because of their faith in one G0d (with no children), we have been persecuted and murdered."

That is patently false on two counts:

First, to imply that Christians murder Jews because of Christ is the equivalent of saying that Muslims love Jews because of Muhammad.

Second, to imply that the concept of a triune YHWH is un-Biblical is to be either woefully illiterate or perversely mendacious, for Moses, David, Isaiah, and the rest of the Prophets all point to the Messiah as God Incarnate dying for the sins of the world.

"My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

"Narrated 'Aisha [Mohammed's six-year-old "bride" and nine-year-old sexual "partner"]: 'Allah's Apostle said (to me), "You were shown to me twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, 'She is your wife, so uncover her,' and behold, it was you. I would then say (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'"'" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139 and 140).

To any good muslim reading this, assalaamalaikum! skouti is doing a lame job defending islam. Can you come help him?

sura 7:157 says mohamad is mentioned in the Torah. But nobody can find the Torah chapter and verse, please help! Your religion is being proven false! The noble, glorious, unadulterated, well-endowed and infallible quran is being soiled as toilet paper (or should I say pebbles, per sahih muslim 2:458).

None required. if you were knowledgeable enough about how international law works and is applied to nations you would know the answer yourself but evidently you are not as you come back with the assnine reply

"Will you say the same to Muslims living in lands that were conquered by Muhammad's army? "

My favourite hadith(apart from the hilarious "farting" hadiths):"Muslims will be the scum and the rubbish even though their numbers may increase; the enemy will not fear Muslims anymore. This will be because the Muslims will love world and dislike death…"(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 37.4284)

Are muslims aware that their prophet predicted that they would become 'scum'(now coming true)?

Probably the best article I read on Islam,which demonstrates how Muhammad predicted the demise of Islam:

http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/Demise-of-Islam.htm

Therefore, any muslim who claims that Islam will rule the world is,in fact,contradicting his own prophet....How about that?

Yup, you hit a raw mohamedan nerve here. If you refer to their comments on previous blog entries, it does appear that skouti has a fixation on backsides :D

But, lest you be quick to blame them, it's not their fault. islam has one rule to know if your prayer is accepted:

hadith Sahih Muslim:

The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and his Household and grant them peace) has said, "If any of you feels something in his stomach such that it is unclear to him, whether something has come out or not, then he should certainly not leave the mosque, unless he hears a sound or smells an odour."

Yup, and remember you read it right here! So after prayer, a mohamedan would do well to turn and sniff around. If there is a smell, then allah rejected his prayer.

I've been on this new blog's comments sections since it started in December. The Muslim "skoutl" never answers questions, and only responds by generating new static fields of further obfuscation, further polluted by his uncouth and insulting manner.

I have long realized that there exists no Muslim on Earth capable of having an actual rational debate about the problems of Islam. They are either barbarians like skoutl, or they are cleverly snakelike sophists. Rarely, they take off the mask and simply admit (with all the hadith and Koran citations supplied we could ever hope for) that they want to subjugate us by their divine supremacist right; and if we resist, to kill us.

Under this ongoing circumstance, it's utterly pointless to engage with Muslims on any level other than the pragmatically inimical, with an eye on our #1 priority -- the safety of our societies. The education of our fellow non-Muslim Westerners who remain relatively asleep to the danger of Islam (unfortunately, the majority throughout the West) is the only worthwhile expenditure of our intellectual and rhetorical energy; not in getting into erstwhile dialogues and debates with people whose hearts, souls and minds have long become diseased and deformed by Islam.

Muslims know they cannot conquer the West militarily and so resort to taqiyya warfare where and whenever. Too many in the West are either PC, too stupid, too drunk, or just don't care about what's going on around them to see that creeping sharia is no longer creeping but is gathering apace to the delight of the jihadists.

Muslims who are defeated in the debate arena will not admit to this and, as I have seen on numerous occasions, proclaim victory by their incremental and voluminous chants of "Allah u akbar" as though that saves the day. It's rather like one side just losing the Super Bowl and the losing fans claiming they won by out-shouting the opposing fans!

It may seem like an obvious point, but while I agree that Muslims are incapable of conquering the West (even though quite a few "gloomers" in the anti-Islam movement, such as it is, wring their hands about such a possibility), that's not what I'm worried about. I'm worried about what innumerable Muslim fanatics -- whose motile pullulation and networking we will not be able always to predict -- will be able to wreak simply in trying, but failing, to conquer us. It is against fanatical Muslim failures -- in the form of various flavors of WMDs, which as time goes along they will become more adept and ingenious in devising, in addition to the classic nuclear/chemical/biological (e.g., multiple car crashes in busy freeway complexes of major cities) that we have to protect ourselves.

We can go on and on about obscure hadith passages, and/or hoping that masses of Muslims will leave Islam and spare us the grim trouble of having to do something about them; but I'm more concerned about preventing exploding Muslims in our midst.

skouti - folks here are a hell of lot more intelligent than some random faggot trolls with no ups, nothing relevant to say - yourself and the other ass upper called anj. Why don't you guys go and play with your kid-wives, perhaps you will impress them with your school yard behavior?

In 2006 I tried to find out whether there exists a statistically significant relationship between the percentage of Muslims in a nation's population and the quantity of civil liberties and political rights in that nation. The result was this blog post (later confirmed also for 2009 and 2010 data):Immigration Advisory

In this post I expand my last one, and take Freedom House rankings of civil liberties/political rights in every country in the world, and correlate those rankings with the percentage of a country's population that is Muslim. (The best possible Freedom House ranking is "1" for civil liberties and "1" for political rights, for a best possible total score of "2". Costa Rica, Germany, Taiwan, the U.S. and Canada are examples of nations that earned a "2" ranking. The worst possible ranking is 7 for civil liberties and 7 for political rights, for a total of 14. Saudi Arabia and Syria are examples of countries ranked "14".)

For 2005, here is the negative relationship I found between Muslim population percentages and civil liberties/political rights. Notice that as the Muslim percentage goes down, the Freedom House score keeps getting better, closer and closer to 2:

23 nations in the world had populations that were 91%-100% Muslim. These nations earned an average Freedom House ranking of 10.4 for civil liberties and political rights.

13 nations had populations that were 71-90% Muslim. These nations earned an average Freedom House ranking of 9.6.

8 nations had populations that were 51-70% Muslim. These nations earned an average ranking of 9.3

14 nations had populations that were 20-50% Muslim. These nations earned an average ranking of 8.4.

The world's remaining 130 or so nations had populations that were 0% to 19% Muslim, and earned an average Freedom House ranking of 5.1.

So the 2005 period covered by the 2006 Freedom House report shows that the lower the percentage of Muslims in a country, the better off that country tended to be in terms of civil liberties/political rights.

As I mentioned in my last post, there are outliers within the overall pattern, like Mali. Mali is 90% Muslim, but was given a "4" ranking, which is sufficiently good to just barely put Mali in Freedom House's "free country" category for 2005. It remains there in the 2011 Report.

I should add that the above negative correlation has recently been confirmed by Jihad Watch commenter Kinana of Kaybar, using 2009 and 2010 data. He found a correlation coefficient of about .5, which means that for 2009 and 2010, it indeed tended to be the case that the higher the percentage of Muslims in a nation's population, the worse the situation of civil liberties and political rights was in that nation. Those results should not be surprising, if you are aware of the human rights data for Islamic nations.

For example, check out these pie charts from the international human rights organization Freedom House. Scroll down to the regional pie charts. The pie chart for the Middle East/North Africa -- which happens to be the core Islamic region -- shows the most unfree area in the world. However, one country included in the Middle East/North Africa pie chart is listed as "free." Can you guess which one that is? (Hint: It's not Islamic.)

Fantastic Post my friend, keep up the good and holy work, it will produce great fruit. I have been arguing with an Atheist on Soadhead.com about this and came to the same conclusions. The usurpers are surrounding Israel, we must defend God's Land!

I have a comment on word choice, which I think is important to your article. You wrote, regarding the reasons Muslim teachers gave you for why they didn't like Jews:"I always got very petty reasons, saying because they killed innocent Muslims and still are killing so many innocent Muslims in Palestine, and mainly because they killed so many prophets."(my bolding)

I think you need a different word there instead of petty. The main meaning of petty is "unimportant," or "not sufficiently important." Obviously, the killing of innocent people, even if that is mentioned only in reference to the allegations of killing, is not unimportant.

Try this dictionary, which is a useful online reference: http://www.onelook.com/

It seems the reasons they (those authorities you mention) gave are based on a one-sided, biased, tendentious view of the Middle East conflict, and prejudicial, hateful view of the Jews (as presented in the Quran's libels against the Jews). I would characterize the allegations against the Jews in this case as grievous, and egregious; petty is not a word that would come to mind and does not seem fitting.

This is an important issue for the native English-speaking reader; it is quite jarring to read petty used in that manner.

There was also an issue in your previous article, with the use of "indoctrinating" as something positive or desirable. Indoctrinate normally has a negative connotation to native English speakers; it evokes images of children being force-fed propaganda which they are not allowed to question. Probably "educating" would have been a better word choice in that context to carry the positive connotation.

I agree -- but with millions of them already mingling on our turf (from Australia to Europe to the UK to Canada to North America), not just out in the open in one place easily identifiable, but within nearly every city and town, and within most of our major institutions (including schools, academe, government, business sector, police, firefighting, even our military for God's sake) and millions more to come (and/or going to be born) in the next few decades with no politicians willing or able to turn this gigantic ship around -- it won't be that easy. We're going to have to grapple with the brute fact of rounding up Western citizens who are Muslims and deporting them.

Or, we can continue to risk being blown to smithereens, with the possibility even of mass biological, chemical or nuclear attacks.

We can't do both -- preserve the notion that citizenship confers upon a Muslim magical powers of inviolability; or save the lives of millions of our real citizens. It will increasingly be one or the other. The sooner we make the bold choice, the less costly, less messy, and less bloody will be the denouement. That equation is the only simple thing about this whole fucking mess. But most in the anti-Islam movement don't want to think about it, and keep hoping for simpler, more magical solutions.

I agree with Greenforest's comment on the use of the word "petty". A more aptly chosen word would strengthen your case because it would acknowledge that the Jews are not a totally innocent people in God's eyes (no-one is).

This however is a minor quibble. Another excellent post. Thank you very much.

Love for Israel is one of the signs of the Spirit of God at work in your heart. If you start to read the words of Jesus you will begin to understand God's heart towards Jerusalem.

1. (From the previous article)"I could not help but feel resentment towards the education system of my country for not teaching us about this hideous and gruesome chapter of history."

(That's assuming the "not" was intended, but "Trying's" interpretation is also possible).

2. (From the above article)"I always used to counter-question those in authority about why are the Jews supposed to be so bad, and they responded with hostile allegations against the Jews, like claiming the Jews killed innocent Muslims and still are killing so many innocent Muslims in Palestine, and that the Jews killed so many prophets."

(That's rewritten without redoing the grammar)

Anyways, I think the solution is for Liberated to have a native English speaker read these articles over and catch any of these word choice issues that seem to pop out. I do understand what Liberated what saying in those cases. Liberated's writing is quite good. It's just that occasionally these word choice issues can be a bit distracting for the reader.

"Abu jahl said to them: Muhammad alleges that if you follow him you will be kings of the Arabs and the Persians. Then after death you will be raised to gardens like those of the Jordan. But if you do not follow him you will be slaughtered, and when you are raised from the dead you will be burned in the fire of hell. The apostle [Muhammad] came out to them with a handful of dust saying: I do say that."

I completely support the idea of deportation of muslims, even those with Western citizenship. Another option, should things spiral out of control, is internment camps, until the deportations can be effected, or if there is no available nation to which they can be sent.

We need to be working on both the national and international fronts at the same time.

That "not" is or is not necessary: Her meaning could simply have been that she didn't like the way her school was indoctrinating her (by them glossing over how horrible the Holocaust was -- but more importantly, by blaming the Jews for the Holocaust; which is classic code among both Nazis and sly Muslims for acknowledging the Holocaust and approving of it, wink-wink).

Indoctrination is perfectly ambiguous: you can either indoctrinate in the truth, or in lies. So, no "not" is necessary in her sentence construction.

A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood."

"Indoctrinate" is not normally a neutral or positive term. It normally has negative connotations. It is unlikely that Liberated would have intended to say something like "too bad they didn't brainwash us..."

This source conveys my point about indoctrinate:

http://www.vocabulary.com/definition/indoctrinate "If you indoctrinate someone, you teach that person a one-sided view of something and ignore or dismiss opinions that don’t agree with your view. Cults, political entities, and even fans of particular sports teams are often said to indoctrinate their followers."

"If you indoctrinate someone, the goal is to have that person follow a particular set of beliefs (or a doctrine), rather than being able to think independently or know right from wrong. For example, a child may be indoctrinated into a life of violence by growing up in a war-torn region, or a student may be indoctrinated into a life as a Marxist by an influential political science professor."

I'm quite sure Liberated did not intend to connote any of that!

The solution is simple: use the word teaching instead of indoctrinating in the sentence in question. Problem solved.

First let me reiterate what you've said about Liberated being a good writer. I agree. I think she's remarkably good, especially for someone whose native language is not English.

As to "indoctrinate." Currently most uses of "indoctrinate" are somewhat negative. However in some contexts, perhaps a diminishing number of contexts, the meaning is neutral, not negative. I wonder if it is less negative in a British setting than in the American one.

Here are two meanings given byAmerican Heritage Dictionary:

1. To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.

2. To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents.

When I read Liberated's use of "indoctrinate," I did read it as an error and not what she meant. One would rarely speak of wishing to be indoctrinated. There are some contexts though where "indoctrinated" apparently does not have a negative meaning, and perhaps in those contexts one could naturally say one wished one had been indoctrinated in some way. I could imagine it maybe in some sort of Catholic setting, for example, say, some elderly priest saying something like, "I wish in my school days I had been properly indoctrinated in the virtues of husbandry," or some such. And I guess there must be non-Catholic settings of a similar sort. The non-negative meaning is perhaps passing into or has already passed into an archaism. The neutral, non-negative use I would guess has occurred with adults in theological settings, and with children in more traditional educational settings. Perhaps only a generation or two ago, "indoctrinating" children was not yet considered negative.

Perhaps the British-based education system of Pakistan in part uses an English older than the American Heritage Dictionary. My 1923 Webster's dictionary defines indoctrinate as essentially a synonym for "teach". This is perfectly logical in terms of the Latin roots of the term. I don't doubt that was the prevailing sense of the term throughout the English-speaking world until about the last half to quarter century -- with certain pockets (like former Colonies) retaining the older sense later.

Dear Liberated One, this is a little off-topic, but I want you to know that I salute your courage and have designated you "Best New Blog" in the first annual Zilla Awards over at my place. You may claim your prize at the link below and also see what good company you are in.

Yes, indoctrinate can mean teach, but I think you guys are missing the point and introducing irrelevancies. It's 2012 and we are talking about the teaching of the history of the Holocaust. The issue is the sorts of associations or connotations that are most likely to arise in most readers (whether American, Canadian, British, etc.) in encountering the word "indoctrinating" in this context. Simply using "teaching" avoids these problems.

Liberated,

Contrary to skouti's nonsense, as you are probably aware, my critical feedback is of a friendly or cordial or collegial sort.

I'll get back to you in a while. I just want to clear up a few more details on the Holy Land issue which I think some may find interesting. This may also show why skouti and other Muslims turn shy when this is addressed, especially when using the Koran.

In the Bible I see multiple passages dealing with the Holy Land and the right of ownership. Whether a person is a Believer or not it is important to try to understand why there is such an ongoing cycle of hostilities which has caused and continue to cause unrest.

Genesis 15: 18 On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates-- 19 the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, 20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites."

How long was this Covenant to last?

Leviticus 25: 23 'The land shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with Me.

So we see according to the Bible the Holy Land actually belongs to the God of Abraham. The problem comes when Muslims [and secularists] dismiss the Bible and say it gives Israel [Jews] no legal rights to it.

It must remain in Israel's possession because Ha Mashiyach Yeshua, Jesus Messiah, Son of Joseph/Son of David, must return there.

Zechariah 14: 4 And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, Which faces Jerusalem on the east. And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two, From east to west, Making a very large valley; Half of the mountain shall move toward the north And half of it toward the south.

Acts 1: 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven." 12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey.

Muslims must give us their reasons as to why the "Palestinians" are the rightful owners. They cannot just claim it without showing why it belongs to them as I have said previously.

Ever tried asking a Muslim to answer this from the Koran? Try it sometime. They will not want to go near the Koran because you see, the Koran does have a few things to say on this.

Here's what the Koran has to say on the Holy land ownership. This has been called, "Islam's best kept secret."

S.5: 20 And when Musa [Moses] said to his people: O my people! remember the favor of Allah upon you when He raised prophets among you and made you kings and gave you what He had not given to any other among the nations. 21 O my people! enter the holy land which Allah has prescribed for you and turn not on your backs for then you will turn back losers.

S.10: 93 And certainly We lodged the children of Israel in a goodly abode and We provided them with good things; but they did not disagree until the knowledge had come to them; surely your Lord will judge between them on the resurrection day concerning that in which they disagreed. 94 But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers.

The "goodly abode" is the Holy Land! Pickthall translates it so:

93 And We verily did allot unto the Children of Israel a fixed abode,

S.17: 101 And certainly We gave Musa nine clear signs; so ask the children of Israel. When he came to them, Firon said to him: Most surely I deem you, O Musa, to be a man deprived of reason. 102 He said: Truly you know that none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth has sent down these as clear proof and most surely I believe you, O Firon, to be given over to perdition. 103 So he desired to destroy them out of the earth, but We drowned him and those with him all together; 104 And We said to the Israelites after him: Dwell in the land: and when the promise of the next life shall come to pass, we will bring you both together in judgment.

These are Allah's decrees and supersede the Bible and human "kuffar" law according to Islam.

This may explain why no Muslim ever lifts up the Koran in public and cries, "Palestine for Palestinians!" In fact, the word "Palestine" is not even in the Koran!

Not all Muslims are wanting to blow the Infidel to bits so they can reach Jannah. Most Muslims I have spoken to do not know what the Koran actually says and deny it when shown in a non-Arabic text. They say, 'It doesn't say that in the Arabic.' When I ask, 'What does it say?' I'm often met with, 'I don't know, but my Imam does.'

Education is important. Many Muslims are finding out what the Koran and Sunnah teach and are quite shocked at its content.

Because of the PC Western nations policy which stifles free speech and encourages the jihadists, the secularists have made it difficult for people such as myself to speak outopenly to these people. Pakistan and the OIC are trying desperately to block anti-Islamic websites and are trying to enforce their "blasphemy law" across the board.

As a Christian I see Bible prophecies being fulfilled and some having already been fulfilled. If you're hoping in politicians to sort this mess out I don't hold out too much hope for anyone. The jihadists aren't looking to politicians to stop the violence. It's in their best interests also in many cases.

I've seen but haven't pursued that argument before against Islam apologists. Unfortunately I immediately see a couple of big problems with it:

-these verses about the Jews are mentioned in historical reference, as in [I'm summarizing roughly here] We (Allah) did all these wonderful things for the Jews, set them up, gave them power, and so on...but then look what those ingrates did, they betrayed Us (Allah) every time, transgressed, killed the prophets, broke their covenant with Allah, threw the Scripture behind their backs, and earned Allah's anger, etc., etc. In other words, whatever privileges Allah had granted the Jews, the Jews rebelled, voiding their covenant and special status, and ended up being subject to Allah's punishment.

-once Muhammad came and delivered the Quran, the Jews, Christians, polytheists, and everyone else who received the message had to either embrace Islam or be subjugated under Islamic law. Once the prophet delivers the message, those who hear it must accept it or be subjugated under its rules, otherwise they are not allowed to live anywhere on the earth. 9:29 and 9:33 are clear: Muslims must fight the People of the Book who don't accept Islam and Muhammad, until they pay the jizya and are subdued; Islam must prevail over all other religions, no matter how much the disbelievers dislike it. The best the Jews might get out of this bargain is living as subjugated dhimmis in the land of Israel under totalitarian Islamic rule--a dangerous and precarious existence indeed.

I know the argument, but the ref's do not deny the Holy Land was given to the Jews, not "Palestinians" or anyone else. Whatever Muslims may want to say about S.9 etc it does not abrogate what the earlier texts teach.

No, the Koran/Hadith do not anticipate the Jews fighting and winning, but the Bible does!

The later verses don't need to abrogate the historical references in regards to what "Allah" said he gave the Jews, long before they were required to believe in the Quran and Muhammad. As I said, the most you're going to get out of this is Jews being allowed to live in Israel, but as persecuted dhimmis under Islamic rule. That is consistent with 9:29, no need to invoke abrogation.

On the other hand, if you find in practice the argument is effective on Muslims, I won't discourage you further.

...on second thought, I can't support that argument even pragmatically...the arguments against it are just too strong...and the idea of using the Quran to try to validate some kind of tolerant view where Jews are left alone (even though the Quran repeatedly states that the disbelievers will not escape on earth and will have no protectors on earth (i.e., no protection from 9:29)) isn't sustainable based on a fuller reading of the Quran.

Who was the Holy Land promised toaccording to the Koran? They should start with the texts I gave which do state Allah gave the Land to the Jews as a "fixed abode," to "dwell in." It's often said that S.9 was historical and was only for that time.

If they start with S.9 that would mean they admit Islam is not a "Religion of Peace," no one is safe from Allah's wrath and S.9 can be applied to any infidel any time.

I do not cite those texts to try to prove a tolerant Islamic view. I know enough to understand no one who does not submit to Allah will be spared should Islam have it's way. No Muslim I've debated has ever used your argument in that way. I'm not saying you're right, I'm not saying you're wrong. I just have never had any Muslim use that approach.

I do agree with you in that the best Jews could hope for is subjugation in the Land, but I still see the referred to texts as saying the Land was promised, in the Koran to the Jews.

S.10: 93 And certainly We lodged the children of Israel in a goodly abode and We provided them with good things; but they did not disagree until the knowledge had come to them; surely your Lord will judge between them on the resurrection day concerning that in which they disagreed.

Now where is skouti, did he come out from hiding since this morning? I can't wait to ask that dear mohamedan about that! :D

... a fact that we have pointed out many, many times at Jihad Watch: there is no reliable way to distinguish jihadists from peaceful Muslims.

And:

... what we have pointed out many times over the years: that there is no reliable way to distinguish between Islamic "extremists" and Islamic "moderates".

You go on to write:

"Most Muslims I have spoken to do not know what the Koran actually says and deny it when shown in a non-Arabic text."

And you believe them?

"They say, 'It doesn't say that in the Arabic.' Then I ask, 'What does it say?' I'm often met with, 'I don't know, but my Imam does.' "

Sorry, but the stakes are too high to assume that any given Muslim is not lying through his teeth at an Infidel daring to challenge his Islam. To the extent that your generosity and benefit of the doubt to Muslims becomes translated into pragmatic policy, it may well have disastrous effects on our ability to defend ourselves.

"It's 2012 and we are talking about the teaching of the history of the Holocaust."

I understand your general point, and I agree, when it comes to basic teaching about the Holocaust. But Liberated is not a teacher, and her blog is not a class or a textbook. I think it's not only fine for blogs to stretch out a little (my blog, for example, often employs complex analyses, big words and obscure historical references; Hugh Fitzgerald also tends to indulge in same) -- it actually is good, because it shows our most important audience, the millions of Westerners still on the fence and only half-awake with the PC MC in their veins slowly melting, that the anti-Islam movement is not some simple-minded bloc of redneck yahoos. If Liberated uses an archaic word in a post of her impressions, memories and opinions about the Holocaust and its place in Islamic society as she recalls it, I don't see the big deal. In fact, it reflects one small part of the richness of history and language, which along with the curiosity of it, is part of the greatness of the West. Surely blog readers can find out about the Holocaust other ways, and hopefully they have enough curiosity to be piqued by the occasional archaicism, rather than turned off.

A December 2010 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found widespread popular support for death penalty as a punishment for leaving Islam. In Egypt (84% of respondents in favor of death penalty), Jordan (86% in favor), Indonesia (30% in favor), Pakistan (76% favor) and Nigeria (51% in favor).

Hesperado, do not ex-Muslims generally agree that many Muslims are not well-informed about what the Qur'an and Hadith say? And if ex-Muslims agree on that, do you disagree with them on that?

As you know, the reason often given for the state of ignorance and vagueness (a vagueness which provides latitude for quasi-unintentional self-deception and denial mechanisms shading into intentional lying to others in response to criticisms of Islam) -- the reason for the alleged ignorance is that Islam teaches that the true Qur'an exists only in Arabic, therefore Muslims the world over must pray in Arabic, even though only 1/5 or 1/6 of the world's Muslims can understand and read Arabic. So when Muslims pray, 5/6 of them don't know that much about what they are praying. And even Arabs may find substantial obscurities in the 1400-year-old Arabic of the Qur'an.

It's not just Sura 9 that goes against the idea that Jews would be left alone unmolested in their (previously, pre-Islamically) promised land. It goes against the Quran taken as a whole. The "promise" of Allah was not a one-way unconditional promise. It was conditional upon Jews believing in and obeying Allah, and respecting the prophets. The Jews broke their side of the bargain, broke the covenant, and so Allah is not bound to keep up his end of the bargain. (Allah is not bound to anything else either, but that is an additional matter). Instead, Allah punishes them.

The idea that Jews would be allowed a safe haven after Muhammad has come and delivered "Allah's" message, and the marching orders, isn't sustainable.

Again, I can't support your argument because it plucks a few verses out of context (e.g., citing Allah's promise but not mentioning that it was conditional), and in an ad hoc manner, and it ignores the overriding message of the Quran, which is that Muslims have to conquer everyone who doesn't convert to Islam, and all non-Muslims are going to hell.

I agree with your latest post, except to note that for me this was merely an issue of suggesting a better choice of words, i.e., a simple routine practical matter. If one were proofreading the texts of the article, one would circle "indoctrinating," write the suggested alternative "teaching" (or educating, or whatever), and move on. One must have priorities.

I'll leave you with the punchline for now: I submit to you (pun intended) that our situation with Muslims and unpredictable terrorism is analogous to the following:

You are seated at a table. You have ten boxes of cereal before you. You know that 9 out of 10 boxes are safe, but that one box contains cereal that will make you go into excruciating convulsions and die a horrible death in a matter of minutes. You don't know which box will do that. In fact, you have heard from reliable sources before that time and time again, people will claim certain boxes are harmless, and they turn out to be deadly. Would you pick a box at random and start eating if you were hungry and you had no other choice?

"How do you tell the difference between the dangerous Muslims and the harmless Muslims?"

Whilst I agree with Spencer I will refer to Traeh's points regarding ex-Muslims. Liberated seems to be one such person who, having done some soul searching saw the inhumanity of Islam's hatred for Jews [non-Muslims]. I've spoken to enough Muslims in private who - if body language and their questions are anything to go by, not to mention the info' they request and take from me - are asking questions without asking the questions directly.

There is no scientific method of determining who is dangerous and who is not; but if I stereotyped all Muslims I would have tarred Liberated with the same brush. How would that go down with her, I wonder?

"Most Muslims I have spoken to do not know what the Koran actually says and deny it when shown in a non-Arabic text."

"And you believe them?"

Yes. I especially believe those who come out of Islam and become Christians. Why would they lie? Why not just admit they actually knew those things but pretended they did not? I'm talking about those who I have personally engaged with, not some anonymous person on a blog or forum.

This is in the context of who the Land was promised to, Jew or "Palestinian"? not what S.9 or the Koran has to say about the kuffar.

S.9 may have been Muhammad's way of sulking against the Jews because they saw through his lies, but my original point was this: The Holy Land, promised to whom according to the Koran? Was it promised to the Jews, or was "Palestine" promised to the "Palestinians," words which are not even in the Koran?

The Koran says that Allah gave the Jews the Torah and the Injil to the Christians. S.9 changes this no more than it changed the ref's that state the Land, as was the Torah was given to the Jews. Other than that I really don't know any other way to make this any clearer.

I have a question. Is this the way a Muslim explained this to you, or did you interpret it that way yourself?

"How do you tell the difference between the dangerous Muslims and the harmless Muslims?"

"Whilst I agree with Spencer I will refer to Traeh's points regarding ex-Muslims. Liberated seems to be one such person who, having done some soul searching saw the inhumanity of Islam's hatred for Jews [non-Muslims]."

The problem with ex-Muslims is not so much the concrete ex-Muslims we may be able to vet, but the imagined hypothetical potential for innumerable Muslims to become ex-Muslims, and the ways in which that potential may affect our definition and interpretation of the content and procedure of our policies with regard to Muslims in the West. The temptation seems easy to go from a handful of personal experiences with ex-Muslims, slenderly bolstered by anecdotal evidence of same from others, to rather grandiose notions of a general trend or potential for hope among masses of Muslims. I think such a transition or extrapolation has too great a potential for reckless expectations at best, and actual obstruction of harsher measures we may need to re-orient ourselves to take in order to protect our societies.

Again, all this would be unnecessary if we could easily tell the difference between the dangerous Muslims and the harmless Muslims.

"I've spoken to enough Muslims in private who - if body language and their questions are anything to go by, not to mention the info' they request and take from me - are asking questions without asking the questions directly."

I don't know what line of work you do, or what strange hobby you have, by which you are put into such close, protracted and substantive proximity with so many Muslims (or, alternatively, you could be exaggerating both the quantity and qualitative substance of your encounters with Muslims; but either way, it's not a little odd unless you are a translator or UNICEF aid worker working for the UN in several Muslim countries or something), but your evidence is simply anecdotal, further burdened by being presented anonymously with no way for any of its particulars to be verified or tested as to its accuracy. You may sincerely think you get these impressions from these Muslims you encounter; but your ability to discern may suffer from any number of flaws, and one must have at least a second opinion about those encounters before taking their weight and relevance with regard to our discussion at face value.

"There is no scientific method of determining who is dangerous and who is not...:

Yes: And when the risks are high, one does what one has to do, given that limitation. It would be reckless to bend over backwards in order to avoid erring on the side of caution, necessarily entailing collateral damage. Such recklessness can soon begin to merge into grave irresponsibility when the lives and property of innumerable other people are on the line, while one would persist in indulging one's ethical qualms in order to make themselves feel ethically better; etc.

"...but if I stereotyped all Muslims I would have tarred Liberated with the same brush. How would that go down with her, I wonder?"

Our grim necessity is that any given Muslim is dangerous unti proven harmless. It would be reckless, and irresponsible, for us to reverse that equation, as we do reasonably with all other groups on Earth -- since no other group on Earth is blowing up ferries in Manila; blowing up nightclubs in Bali; beheading girls in Indonesia, lynching Indians in India, Kashmir and Pakistan; blowing up hotels in Jordan; blowing up planes and rock concerts and apartment complexes in Russia; holding children hostage in Russia and violating them and killing some of them; machine-gunning tourists at random in Egypt; blowing up hotels in Egypt; slitting the throats of whole families who don't pray on time in Algeria; torturing a young Jewish man to death near Paris for days while calling up his family to hear his screams on the phone while the Muslims recite Koran verses; ramming planes into buildings in New York mass-murdering over 3,000; blowing up trains in London; blowing up trains in Madrid; shooting unarmed military and office personnel at a fort on American soil and not stopping to kill until being killed; and in addition to all this shit planning hundreds of other terrorist acts as bad if not worse (e.g., taking Canadian Parliament hostage and beheading the Prime Minister on national TV); etc. ad nauseam.

But you know all this, so why do I have to expend time and energy telling you this?

A purported ex-Muslim like Shakila comes from this unique group. It would be reckless and irresponsible not to verify she really is on our side, before allowing her access to anything that might allow her to harm people or aid in that effort. As far as this context goes -- of her having a blog and saying anti-Islamic things, I have no reason to suspect her. But if the context were sensitive and lives were on the line, I would be forced to treat her with suspicion and to ratchet up the criteria for verifying her harmlessess. And anyone who isn't prepared to do that is endagering my life, and the lives of my loved ones and fellow citizens.

"Most Muslims I have spoken to do not know what the Koran actually says and deny it when shown in a non-Arabic text."

"And you believe them?"

Yes. I especially believe those who come out of Islam and become Christians.

You "especially" believe those who leave Islam. That means you believe those who remain Muslims (even if not "especially"). The question remains. Why believe anything a Muslim tells you? Given the culture of deceit in Islamic society, it's far more likely that when a Muslim tells you anything, he's lying -- particularly things that would have the effect of mollifying, lulling or distracting an Infidel.

After reading your post I have to say - and I mean no offense here - but I have to say it reminded me of the mistrust Hitler had of the Jews and white supremacists have of Blacks, to mention just two.

I'm a Christian. I engage with Muslims etc with intention of leading them out of the darkness of Islam into the Truth of Messiah Jesus. I can understand why a non-Christian would take a view such as yours, but that is not my way, nor is it the way I believe will help these people. Many Muslims have renounced Islam. Not all have become Christian admittedly and perhaps you have a good reason[s] for not trusting those.

You give the impression of someone who would not have trusted the Blacks in South Africa [if you were a white S.African] after apartheid. I wonder how you would have handled this?

Your worldview seems to be somewhat atheistic since this is often how atheists reason. I fear for you if you should ever suffer a heart attack and a Muslim comes to try and help you:)

Btw, the jihadists do not have a monopoly on violence.

"A team of eight young men who were preaching the Gospel on the streets in Andhra Pradesh, India were arrested in September 2011. When a large and hostile crowd gathered, the police failed to disperse them, and they then took the Christians into “protective custody”. But the mob then pressured the police to take action against the young men, accusing them of engaging in “religious conversion”, and a case was registered against them. Conversion is a sensitive issue for many Hindus in India, and some states have introduced laws that forbid it by means of “force”, “fraud” or “inducement”. Pray for these faithful evangelists, that the Lord will enable them to speak His Word with great boldness (Acts 4:29)." - Barnabas Fund.

"I have to say it reminded me of the mistrust Hitler had of the Jews and white supremacists have of Blacks..."

You are not thinking rationally. If Jews or any other group were saying and doing the things Muslims are saying and doing (further buttressed by an ideological blueprint in the form of religious texts), I would be equally suspicious and wary of Jews or any other group. But they aren't; so I'm not. This is about concrete words and deeds; not about abstract principles in abstraction from concrete words and deeds.

You seem to be trying to use a kind of argument that erroneously makes Islam look tolerant, or that there is some kind of loophole in the Quran whereby Muslims must leave non-Muslims alone unmolested on some particular patch of land which Allah has ordained for them. The verses you cited above say no such thing, nor do any of the tafsirs I've consulted support your interpretation.

You ask: "I have a question. Is this the way a Muslim explained this to you, or did you interpret it that way yourself?"

The most relevant interpretation is best shown by Muhammad and his companions. According to Islamic history, in 628 Muhammad sent out letters to the leaders of the neighboring empires and territories warning them to embrace Islam and threatening to conquer them if they did not comply. In 629, Muhammad himself initiated the first raids into Palestinian territory.[1] The four rightly guided caliphs after Muhammad's death in 632 (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali), plus Muhammad's other warrior companions, continued to invade, and then conquered, and then held, the relevant territory in the Middle East (i.e., the Levant, including but not limited to what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories). Umar conquered the region by about 640.

I have read the Quran and have studied it in detail. My reading of it agrees with the idea that after Muhammad's message, people had to either accept the invitation to embrace Islam (and pay zakat) or be subjugated and taxed heavily under Islamic law, or else fight to the death. This was certainly the policy, for example, that was shown in Muhammad's conquest of the Khaybar Jews (as referenced in Quran 33:26-27). The Hadith and the Sira bear this out. Islamic law bears this out. Moreover, Islamic jurisprudence requires that any territory that was once acquired by Islam must always remain so, and that if it falls into non-Muslim hands it must be reconquered.

"The Koran says that Allah gave the Jews the Torah and the Injil to the Christians. S.9 changes this no more than it changed the ref's that state the Land, as was the Torah was given to the Jews. Other than that I really don't know any other way to make this any clearer."

The fact that the Quran says Allah gave the Jews and Christians the Torah and Gospel doesn't mean these Books are to be followed after Muhammad came with the Quran and his rulings. People in the pre-Islamic era are cited in the Quran as righteous, upright, believers, and "Muslims" if they follow the prophets and pure monotheism. Jesus, Moses, et al., are called "Muslim" prophetsin the Quran. In addition, the Quran imposes revisionist reading such that Jews and Christians have distorted their Scriptures, deny that the Scriptures prophecy Muhammad's coming, and that they don't follow them adequately anyway.

Islam is a replacement theology/ideology. It erases, and replaces, what came before it (see Ibn Kathir's tafsir of 8:38-39). After Muhammad, and the Quran, and their message to all humankind (7:156-158, 34:28), everyone is either to embrace Islam, or else accept dhimmitude (9:29) or slavery, or risk death in battle. Those who fail to do this and oppose Islam are considered guilty of trangressing and spreading corruption on earth and must be subject to the penalties listed in 5:32-33, which include death, crucifixion, cross-amputation, or banishment. Note banishment. Then note the jihad policy of the Quran, and of Muhammad, who expelled some of the Jews and killed others.

There is nothing in the Quran that says there is a particular patch of land (or particular group of people) where Islamic jihad policy and Islamic law do not apply and must not ever apply.

You seem to have an axe to grind here about atheists or the non-religious. I'm not sure how this is relevant. In any case, since you've raised the topic, I'll address it, in the hopes to clear up your misconceptions. You wrote:

"Because of the PC Western nations policy which stifles free speech and encourages the jihadists, the secularists have made it difficult for people such as myself to speak out openly to these people."

I'm a secularist--i.e., someone who opposes theocracy--and as far as I'm concerned you can criticize Islam and Muhammad and political correctness etc. all you want. There are both religious and non-religious people of the politically correct type who oppose criticism of Islam and Muhammad.

You said to Hesperado (who as far as I'm aware is an agnostic) "Your worldview seems to be somewhat atheistic since this is often how atheists reason. I fear for you if you should ever suffer a heart attack and a Muslim comes to try and help you:)"

There are religious and non-religious people who agree/disagree with Hesperado's views. (For example, I'm an atheist, and I disagree with Hesperado, and I know lots of other atheists who would also disagree with him). Total red herring.

In regards to Muhammad's ambitions toward conquering the neighboring regions, I might as well post the following quote from Moshe Gil's A History of Palestine 634-1099 (p. 12), which I typed out for my Islamic History files:

"When Muhammad reached Medina in 622, Palestine was under Persian domination. The events of the Persian and Byzantine wars were still alive in the minds of the inhabitants of the peninsula and Muhammad was certainly aware of what had occurred; these events are mentioned in the Koran (surat al-rum). He understood only too well that the two major powers, Persia and Byzantium, were gradually being weakened by their continuous warring. In one of the most difficult moments endured by the young Muslim ummah (community), when and expeditionary force from Mecca laid siege to Medina and the Muslims were compelled to surround themselves by a ditch (something that had never happened in Bedouin experience) and were complaining of the laborious digging, Muhammad declared that he saw in the sparks that flew from the digging shovels, the palaces of Kisra (Khusraw), as they called the Persian king, and Qaysar (the Byzantine emperor), as the future patrimony of the Muslims. Both the Prophet and the early Muslims professed these ideas and intentions as part of a religious outlook according to which the Day of Judgment was imminent. Muhammad thought of himself as bringing the Word of God, a God who had chosen him to carry His message to the righteous, that is, the Muslims, and he had no doubt in his mind that the Muslims would shortly inherit the earth. Towards the end of his life, he began his first raids into Palestinian territory, which in the meantime had returned to Byzantine rule. His goal, at this stage, was evidently to induce the tribes on the Palestinian borders to join him, as we shall see below. The major conquests only began two years after his death.”

Greenforest, I'd say that most Western atheists would disagree with me because while they may be "against religion" in general, they tend to soft-pedal criticism of Islam, and exaggerate criticism of other religions (mostly Christianity). Any vigorous criticism of Islam -- particularly any criticism that implies, as mine does, that Islam is a gazillion times worse than all other religions -- would be frowned upon by most Western atheists, because their paradigm of Equivalency ("all religions are equally bad") often actually serves to protect Islam by dulling the edges around it that show it to be -- precisely a gazillion times worse than all other religions.

Re: this business about the Taurat and Injil (Torah and Gospel); it's quite simple really. Here's the Islamic perspective:

1) Allah is Yahweh.

2) Allah created the world and Adam and Eve, etc.

3) Allah along the way tried to guide Mankind, but Mankind kept straying and erring (so far, this is pretty much what the Old Testament says).

4) At some point, Allah gave Moses the Taurat -- which is the "Guidance" of Allah. However, subsequent Jews, being evil and corrupt, corrupted the Taurat and disfigured it, purposefully leaving out key passages.

5) Various individual prophets of Allah came along, now and then, to calumniate against the Israelites for falling repeatedly into wickedness (again, nothing terribly different from the Old Testament).

6) The situation kept devolving, then penultimately, a prophet of Allah (Issa/Jesus) rose up to try to show Mankind (and the Jews) the Guidance of Allah, but he too was rejected. His Guidance, the Injil (the Evangel or Gospel) was also corrupted and twisted by the corrupt and wicked followers (= Christians) of Issa.

7) Note: All the Jews and Christians who during those 2000+ Biblical years happened to follow Allah's Guidance are true Muslims; the rest are traitors and Kuffar, hiding and mangling the truth.

8) Finally, a few hundred years after that, Allah said "Enough's Enough" and sent his Last Prophet, and said in effect -- "You better follow this one and My Definitive Book I entrusted him with, or you are all fucked. End of story." And Mohammed's minions have been dutifully carrying out the spirit and the letter of that Last Missive from God AKA Allah, grimly and violently trying to make damned sure it takes.

When I said "disagree" with you, I was referring to the particular comments to which Hugh responded.

As to the issue of religious versus nonreligious attitudes, among Westerners, toward Islam and Islam criticism, there are indeed some soft-headed and equivalencist views among atheists and agnostics, but I've also seen these types of arguments from Christians and Jews who argue that the real problem is "fundamentalism", and ask why can't we just stop all this nasty business of criticism and get together for the next interfaith Kumbayah session? (And some soft-religious people also complain that the "new atheists" are extremists etc. too)

Re atheists, in recent years, particularly with the strong statements characterizing Islam as the worst threat, by such figures as Harris, (the late) Hitchens, Dawkins, Hirsi Ali, and others, and by my observations of atheist website comment sections, the view that Islam is worse than the others has definitely increased. However, American atheists on the political far left seem to be particularly reluctant (as compared to other atheists in general) to criticize Islam, and particularly trigger-happy about crying bigotry whenever a criticism of Islam is not accompanied by at least some token criticism of Christianity or Judaism), and this may have more to do with the right-left political dynamic in the U.S. than anything about atheists as such.

Mostly, I agree that the reflexive defense of Islam and of Muslims is not peculiarly rooted in atheism qua atheism. However, I do not agree that the reflexive defense is a left/right political phenomenon -- for the simple reason that the majority (if not the vast majority) of Conservatives, Centrists and that large swath of people who are Comfortably Apolitical all more or less also reflexively defend Islam and Muslims.

That's why I use the term PC MC rather than "Leftist" or "liberal", since otherwise we'd have to call individuals ike George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Texas Governor Perry and many other conservatives "liberals", which strains the terminology past the breaking point. Most conservatives may indeed be conservative when it comes to a whole array of other sociopolitical issues; but when it comes to the issue of condemning Islam and condemning all Muslims who support and/or enable Islam -- suddenly, magically, these same conservatives become unable to step up to the plate. Were Muslims white power supremacists and were their ideology Islam a white power ideology (and were such hypothetical Muslims doing all the same violent and intolerant things the actual Muslims have been doing around the world), all conservatives would immediately condemn them and call for aggressive measures, without mincing words and gingerly walking on eggshells at best, groping for "isms" by which to truncate the problem down to a bare minimum of a Tiny Minority of Extremists.

That said, there is something about the subculture of atheism that lends itself to being timid about condemning Islam -- and that is its cultivation of an anti-Christian animus coupled with its enthusiastic swallowing and regurgitative parroting of the self-hating "shame" of the white West's tradition of Evil Colonialism and Evil Treatment of Brown People. Along comes this new ethnic people (or wonderfully diverse rainbow of Ethnic Peoples),the Muslim, and all the mechanisms of PC MC Anti-Racism (with its necessary corollary, the dogma that only the White West is capable of the evil of racism, with all non-whites eternally the hapless victims of us evil whites most of whom historically were evil Christians oppressing, torturing and massacring Precious Noble Savages) kick in and exert themselves.

While atheists are far from being unique or alone in this regard, nevertheless, their subculture warmly gravitates to that overall paradigm of PC MC whenever it comes to Islam and Muslims, and the exceptions I think are "to the rule".

"You are not thinking rationally. If Jews or any other group were saying and doing the things Muslims are saying and doing..."

I understand what you're saying, but having spoken with numerous Muslims I find that not all are jihadist minded.

Perhaps you're not aware of Muslims who have been executed on the grounds of "honor killings" because they came to the West and were not as devout in their ideology as before. These are often more open to dialog. As it happens being a Christian often helps since Muslims would rather talk to a Christian, even if it's to blast us, than to a non-theist.

"You seem to be trying to use a kind of argument that erroneously makes Islam look tolerant, or that there is some kind of loophole in the Quran..."

Then you're reading me wrong.

I've stated enough times what my point was. The Holy Land. For Jews or "Palestinians"? What does the Koran say?

I said nothing about whether S.9 changes things or not. As it happens I know what the implications of the said sura are, but that's besides the point.

"Islam is a replacement theology/ideology. It erases, and replaces, what came before it..."

So where does it say the Jews were replaced by the "Palestinians" in "Palestine"?

"There is nothing in the Quran that says there is a particular patch of land (or particular group of people) where Islamic jihad policy and Islamic law do not apply and must not ever apply."

Same question as above.

"You seem to have an axe to grind here about atheists or the non-religious..."

There are many secularists who think all religions are the same and all need to be restricted in how they operate. This causes problems when different religious groups want to debate. For some reason secularists seem to think if people from different religious bodies get together a war will break out. PCness is their attempts to solve this matter at the expense of free speech. To be fair it's not just atheists or secularists. I posted something about Pakistan wanting to ban anything it considers anti-Islamic.

"having spoken with numerous Muslims I find that not all are jihadist minded.

I have no way of knowing whether you asked them the right questions (and, just as important, the right follow-up questions) by which to vet them, so not only are you proffering anecdotal evidence, but insufficient anecdotal evidence at that.

"Perhaps you're not aware of Muslims who have been executed on the grounds of "honor killings" because they came to the West and were not as devout in their ideology as before."

Islam has had murderous internecine fighting since its inception 1400 years ago. The fact that one group interprets their flavor of fanaticism "purer" than another and therefore warranting killing them does not by itself prove that the ones killed are any less dangerous to us. And the mere fact of superficially behaving in Westernized fashion is not sufficient proof of a Muslim's harmlessness. So on both counts, your test fails to meet the stringent standard we must uphold because the stakes are so high. If you add to these two insufficient criteria your own gut feeling, I'm afraid I'm not going to bank my safety and the safety of my society on that slender reed. (Even if I knew you personally and came to the conclusion that you were a fine fellow and reasonably intelligent, it would still be insufficient.)

Based on my knowledge and experience, I think in your assumptions you are overestimating the percentage of atheists in the West today who are pro-Islam or soft on Islam. I also suspect you are underestimating, or neglecting, the amount of Christians and Jews in the West who are pro-Islam or soft on Islam.

Greenforest, I hope you're right about atheists; though I wouldn't bet on it. As for Christians and Jews, I don't recall making any statements about them in this regard. I have said that PC MC is rife, dominant and mainstream throughout the West -- from which one could conclude that no one (outside of various minorities which currently don't muster sufficient sway sociopolitically) is spared my dismal assessment.

"I have no way of knowing whether you asked them the right questions (and, just as important, the right follow-up questions) by which to vet them, so not only are you proffering anecdotal evidence, but insufficient anecdotal evidence at that."

"Vet them!" What am I supposed to be vetting them for?

"So on both counts, your test fails to meet the stringent standard we must uphold because the stakes are so high."

Yes. I see souls needing God's grace to save them from eternal damnation. You see security risks of J Edgar Hoover proportions. If a Muslim converts to Christianity they no longer see any need to threaten violence towards their fellow man. There's just no place in Christ's teaching that would allow that.

I absolutely understand your concerns. I too would be watching my Muslim neighbors if I were not a Christian, and with great suspicion. But alas! I'm not caught in that trap:)

I was responding to the points you raised, starting from your initial post on this subject (i.e., the idea that the Quran promised a patch of land to the Jews) and those that followed.

You wrote: "So where does it say the Jews were replaced by the "Palestinians" in "Palestine"?"

Indeed the Quran doesn't say that; it doesn't mention Palestinians or Palestine explicitly or specifically. It (plus the Hadith) orders Muslims to bring all land and people everywhere on earth under the rule of Islam and Muhammad. If the land promised to the Jews exists anywhere on this earth, then Muslims have to conquer it if the Jews don't convert to Islam and implement full sharia. Hence, it doesn't matter if it doesn't mention Palestine in particular; we may logically deduce the land Muslims must conquer includes all particular nameable places on earth.

My main point in response to your posts was that the verses you cited, which involve a past historical reference to a conditional promise to the Jews (conditions which the Jews violated, thus nullifying the covenant involving any such promise), don't change the policy going forward from the Quran's/Muhammad's marching orders.

I see yall getting behind Newt Gingrich's theory of Palestinians being a fake people... sad thing is there is a substantial amount of Palestinian Christians too who are dying but you neoconservative rednecks want Jerusalem to be populated with these big nosed, interest loving bloodsuckers. That the only way Jesus will return right, if all thoses big noses are in the area? Stupid, Israel sinks the US Liberty and the US doesnt retaliate? Israel is the only country in the world that doesn't declare how many nukes they have in their aresenal. Soon Iran will join Pakistan to counter them in that department...

I am really impressed with your writing skills and also with the layout on your weblog. Is this a paid theme or did you customize it yourself? Anyway keep up the excellent quality writing, it is rare to see a nice blog like this one nowadays..Magna Cart Ideal Hand Truck

Knowing the right ingredients to writing a successful essay will do it. Knowing the beginning and ending of an essay are vital parts to making it successful. The first paragraph is the most important paragraph of any type of writing because most readers stop if the first paragraph does not hold their interest. However, knowing how to write supporting evidence, style, and correct grammar are also important. Put these ingredients together and you have a winning essay.________________